According to research published in October 2010 comparing procedures in the UK, The Netherlands, Germany and Italy for restructuring insolvent companies: “The UK has a cultural, legal and professional environment that is highly supportive of reconstruction. The UK system offers a wide range of legal routes available, with courts acting flexibly.”
In May 2016, the UK Government launched a three-month consultation on revisions to the insolvency regulations, including proposals for a three-month moratorium before creditors could take enforcement action, measures to protect essential supplies so that businesses could continue trading and prevent them from being “held hostage” by suppliers and a mechanism preventing both secured and unsecured creditors from dissenting to a proposed rescue plan.
Legislation is already in place for companies to obtain sponsorship from an insolvency practitioner (IP) for a moratorium via the courts, initially for 28 days when considering a CVA (Company Voluntary Arrangement) with scope to apply for extensions.
Interestingly the Australian Government has recently introduced SafeHarbour. Enacted as part of a Treasury Laws Amendment in September 2017, SafeHarbour provides for a balance between protecting creditors and “encouraging directors to be more innovative and take greater risks”.
The basics of SafeHarbour
Directors can enter SafeHarbour after developing courses of action likely to produce a better outcome for their company.
However, they must demonstrate that they are fully aware of the company’s financial position with up to date financial records and provide evidence that they have taken steps to prevent misconduct. They must also ensure employee entitlements have been paid and have fulfilled tax reporting requirements.
Crucially, the directors must take advice from a qualified turnaround and restructuring adviser, who, in the Australian model, does not need to be an IP.
Is SafeHarbour a possible model for UK?
While SafeHarbour’s measures might appear similar to those of a UK CVA moratorium, the latter are generally not used since the advice to IPs from their lawyers has been that that sponsoring a moratorium imposes huge potential liability on them personally. Here, IPs prefer to be appointed as Administrators since this is seen as the safer option.
In the UK, rescue and turnaround advisers are already deemed to be acting as shadow directors with all the directors’ duties this entails. The protection of a SafeHarbour might provide them with a protection window to prepare and put forward proposals to creditors for consensual restructuring or a CVA. The window is needed because ransom action and winding-up petitions are increasingly used by creditors, in practice on advice from creditors’ advisers, to pursue agendas aimed at frustrating genuine turnarounds.
It is useful to study the seemingly lighter touch of the Australian SafeHarbour legislation, which could be a useful model for the UK to follow, as it would address the limitations in current practice in the UK.
Thanks for this blog are due to Australian turnaround practitioner Eddie Griffith for his excellent and helpful input into the details of SafeHarbour.